Re: Kill I4L?

[One Thousand Gnomes]

> The reason is the maintenance load it produces. There's a continuous,
> annoying trickle of patch  proposals, discussions, conflicts with
> development in other, still actively maintained areas of the kernel,
> and so on. The present discussion being a point in case.
> 
> > Does it hurt anyone to leave the code in there, despite it barely 
> > being used?
> 
> Yes it does. Not much, but the pain is increasing over the years.
> Every time someone tries to touch that code there's the problem
> that no one can actually answer for it, much less test anything.

The same has been happening with a lot of other code. For i2o I've
followed the pattern a few other drivers have used. I sent GregKH a patch
to move it into staging, and if nobody steps up then it will vanish in a
few releases.

> > We're not talking about a particularly huge driver here, either.
> 
> But one that's particularly difficult to maintain, without
> providing any noticeable benefit in return.

I'm also not sure a pretty, polished and untested driver is actually
better than someone who needs it going back to an old tree and a known
working driver to forward port.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/